BEAUTY REFUTES EVOLUTION!There are many things in the world that can be describedas beautiful, but why are they beautiful? Can evolutionexplain the origin and purpose of beauty? The theorysays that every step in the process has to be of use to theorganism. Things don’t need to be beautiful to survive, sothe fact that so many things are beautiful is strong evi-dence for design.
MANTIS Shrimps are marine crustaceans, and despite theirname are not true shrimps. These colourful creatures live
mostly in tropical waters, and can be up to 36cm. (14 ins.) long.Mantis shrimps have amazing eyes. In fact, after a recent study, scientists saythey have the most incredible eyes in the whole animal Kingdom. Their eyes aremounted on stalks, which can be moved independently. Each eye contains10,000 clusters of photo-receptor cells, and can see in 12 colours, unlike humans,who only see in 3 colours. Their light-sensitive cells work in a similar way to CD
Mantis Shrimps
Wik
ipe
dia
ph
oto
by J
en
ny H
ua
ng
and DVD players, only much better. Dr Nicholas Roberts,who took part in a study of mantis shrimps from the Austral-ian Great Barrier Reef, said his work revealed for the first
time “the unique design andmechanism of the mantisshrimp’s eye.” He wrote in thejournal Nature Photonics, “Itreally is exceptional — out-per-forming anything we humanshave so far been able to cre-ate... This natural mechanism,comprised of cell membranesrolled into tubes, completely
outperforms synthetic designs.” Dr Roberts believes thatby mimicking the eyes of these creatures human engineerswill be able to create improved optical devices such as CDand DVD players.
CD and DVD players did not come into existencewithout intelligence, so it is impossible that a systemwhich “out-performs anything humans have so farbeen able to create” could do so. The MantisShrimps’ amazing eyes could never have been pro-duced by evolution. Here is clear and unmistakableevidence for intelligent design by an all-wise Creator. W
ikip
edia
ph
oto
by
Ro
der
ick
Eim
e.
Charles Darwin (left) recognised that
beauty was a challenge to his theory.
He wrote, “I willingly admit that a great
number of male animals, as well as
most gorgeous birds, some fishes, rep-
tiles and mammals, and a host of mag-
nificently coloured butterflies, have
been rendered beautiful for beauty’s
sake.” He believed that “sexual selec-
tion” was the answer —but is it? (see
inside)
Darwin’s beauty problem
Birds of Paradise (left) have beautiful plumage. Didthey need this to attract a mate? The most commonbirds in the world are house sparrows, rock pigeons
and European starlings —and they are all fairly plain.So the idea that beauty wasessential for survivaldoesn’t make sense. Manybutterflies are beautiful, too,and many fish have daz-zling and exotic colouring. Isbeauty really an accident ofnature — or the design of aCreator who took delight inHis creations?
There is a lot of beauty in the world which evolution can’t explain.
But there is ugliness, too, and this is a real problem for many
people. Despite the strong evidence for the existence of a Crea-
tor, the presence of evil and suffering in nature makes many ask
how such a Creator can be good. Charles Darwin was troubled
about this. In 1860 he wrote to a friend, Asa Gray, confessing that
he found it difficult to believe in a “benificient and omnipotent
God”, because “there seems to me too much misery in the world.” He found it easier to believe
that cruel instincts had evolved. Lions are magnificent animals, but there is nothing beautiful
about a lion killing and eating another animal. The human body is wonderfully designed, but
there is nothing beautiful about cancer, or other diseases that can ravage our bodies.
So do we reject belief in a Creator altogether, or is God some kind of sadist? Actually there is
a third option which makes sense of everything. At the beginning of the Bible we read that God
created everything that exists, then “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”
(Genesis 1: 31). The Bible then goes on to explain why it is not “very good” now. The first
humans rebelled against God, ruining the original harmony, and
spoiling everything. The New Testament explains that the whole
cosmos is “groaning” and waiting to be liberated from this decay.
(see Romans 8: 20-22). It also explains that God sent Jesus
Christ to begin building a new, restored creation through His
death and resurrection. This new creation begins with people
(who caused the trouble in the first place). “If anyone is in Christ,
he is a new creation.” (2 Corinthians 5: 17). Darwin rejected the
Biblical view of creation and missed the wonder of a relationship
with God. Don’t make the same mistake!
THESE FLOWERS YOUR
Mum SENT you LOOK REALLY
BEAUTIFUL, GEN
But no-one planned this
beauty –they only evolved
to look like that
How would you like it if
someone said that about
your painting, ev?
Drawn
by M
ichael H
uggin
s
TheThe REAL SCIENCEREAL SCIENCE paper! paper!
What is “added beauty”?
The beauty of birdsong
Tale of the missing linkHidden beautyWell Designed: Mantis Shrimps
Beauty and the Beast
INSIDE:
lemur
!
THERE are many beautiful things in the natural world, which can’t beexplained by evolution through natural selection. Most puzzling froman evolutionary point of view is hidden beauty.
Why are micro-organisms that live in water (left), and can’t be seen without amicroscope, so beautiful? They don’t need to be in order to survive. Many ofthe sea creatures that inhabit coral reefs (below right) are amazingly beautiful,and divers are dazzled and awestruck by them. Why would they evolve suchbrilliant colours? Many sea shells (below left) have beautiful colours andintricate patterns. Why? They are not necessaryfor survival. It is much more logical to believethat they were designed by an intelligent Creatorwith an eye for beauty.
In his famous book The Originof Species Charles Darwinwrote about the beauty ofmicro-organisms: “Few objectsare more beautiful than theminute cases of theDiatomaceae; were thesecreated that they might beexamined and admired underthe higher powers of themicroscope?” We believe theanswer is “Yes!”
Tale of the missing link
ww
w.c
rt.o
rg.u
k w
ww
.da
rwin
da
y.o
rg.u
k
In May 2009 the news media was buzzing with news of the
discovery of an important “missing link” in the story of
human evolution. The fossil (left), nick-named ‘Ida’, was of
a female lemur, said to have characteristics which sug-
gested it was “man’s earliest ancestor.” It was bought for
$750,000 by Norwegian scientist Dr Jorn Hurum who
claimed it was “the first link to all humans.” Its official name
is Darwinius masillae, in honour of Charles Darwin. TV
naturalist Sir David Attenborough confidently proclaimed
“the missing link is no longer missing” and presented a
special TV documentary about it. At the time, many evolutionists were very critical of the
media hype. And creationist scientists s insisted that it was just a fossil lemur.
Now, a group of American fossil experts have studied the fossil in
detail, and concluded that Ida is not related to humans, or to apes and
monkeys, it was simply a type of lemur (right), as creationists said all
along.1 Dr Hurum is sticking to his original opinion, and a furious row is brewing. No doubt, he
wants to justify parting with $750,000,and being proved wrong would leave him looking rather
foolish. To their credit, a number of newspapers have reported the latest news about Ida. This is by
no means the first time that a much-hyped “missing link” claim have fallen flat. In fact, there is
no convincing fossil evidence for human evolution. So it is important to treat all such claims with
a healthy scepticism, especially since those making the claims are usually antagonistic to the
view that humans were created in the image of God, and are separate from the animal creation.
1. Nature, October 23rd. 2009.
What isWhat is “added beauty”?
TAKE a look at the two arches on the right. The one at the top is simplyfunctional; it does its job. The one in the lower picture, however, has been
carved and decorated to make it look attractive. These carvings are not neces-sary for the arch to do its job. They were added by a designer who wanted tomake it look nice. This is added beauty. The font in the headline above is anotherexample. A plain font would have spelt the words just as well. There are many examples of added beauty in the natural world. One exampleis the tail of a peacock (below left). Evolutionists claim that this is the result ofsexual selection, and that the males with the most beautiful tails survivedbecause peahens were more attracted to them. However, if this is true, why is it that birds like crows (below), which are veryplain, have survived just as well? In fact, there are more crows than peacocks inthe world! The peacock’s tail would actually be a hindrance, since it would makethe bird stand out, and being so large, make it harder to escape from predators.Design expert Professor Stuart Burgess writes, “Since evolution requires every
step change to have a selective advantage, it is verydifficult for evolution to explain how the eye patterncould evolve.”1
Professor Burgess points out that the colour patternis equal to 400 dots-per-inch — comparable to modern printing technology! Each feather has100 barbs in the ‘eye’ region, with around 100,000 barbules in the pattern itself. Remarkably,as the tail feathers grow, the eye pattern remains perfect. The complex information to createand preserve the eye pattern in the tail is coded in the peacock’s DNA. An added problem forevolution is to explain where this information came from. Mutations (genetic mistakes) don’t
add new information, and natural selection can onlyselect what is already there. In a letter to a friend, Charles Darwin admitted that thesight of a peacock’s tail made him sick! We agree withProfessor Burgess when he says that beauty is no acci-dent, but that it reveals the wisdom of God.1. Hallmarks of Design, Day One Publications, 2008, Chapter 5.Available from address on the back page.
The Beauty of BirdsongHave you ever listened to the “dawn chorus” when the singing of birds
fills the air? And have you ever wondered why birds sing? Many of
the plainer birds, such as blackbirds (left), have the most beautiful
songs. It is mainly male birds that sing, and the main purpose is either
to attract a mate or warn other birds not to invade their territory. But
this doesn’t explain why many birds sing so beautifully. Some birds
get by very well with a simple “tweet” or a “honk”, so why would others
evolve songs so elaborate that composers have actu-
ally written music based on them? Sometimes birds
sing to each other, and even sing duets and quartets.
When you listen to a piece of music you know that it‘s
not a collection of random notes, but was composed by
an intelligent person. It contains melody, rhythm, varie-
ty and unity. Many birds’ songs are just like that — for
example the song of the wood pewee (right). Bird song
is a form of added beauty — far beyond what natural
selection would produce. There is no reason why a
female bird would choose a mate which sang a beauti-
ful song rather than random notes.
Although birds’ songs are not mainly for our benefit,
we can enjoy listening to them, and, as with any piece
of music, realise they are the product of a composer
with musical knowledge — in this case God!(Based on “Added Beauty in Birdsong” . Hallmarks of Design,
by Professor Stuart Burgess, chapter 6.)
From Hallmarks of Design by Professor Stuart Burgess, p.100
Above: a wood pewee, and (below)part of its song
Birds usually learn to sing by listen-ing to other birds, but that doesn’texplain how bird song originated.Some scientists did an experimentwith some zebra finches (below)1
In this experiment, young birdswere hatched and kept away fromother birds for several genera-tions. During this time they sponta-neously developed the same songsas those of wild zebra finches —whom they had never heard sing!The scientists concluded that theirculture was encoded in their DNA.In other words, they were“programmed” to sing, andprogrammes require a programmer!1. Reported in , May 3rd 2009.
